Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee remained absent, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. A key legal issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment.
Held
The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under section 148/147 regarding cash sales, but the assessment framed did not include any addition based on this reason. The Tribunal cited precedents to quash the reopening.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the validity of the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on specific grounds that were not reflected in the final assessment order.
Sections Cited
143(3), 148, 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081815564(1) dated 16.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned reopening itself as the learned assessing authority had set into motion section 148/147 proceedings against the assessee regarding the sole reason of total cash sales of Rs.5,60,61,900/- whereas his assessment framed on Vibha Bhatia 20.12.2019 ended up adding gross profit of Rs.28,03,095/- in question. It is thus clear that the learned assessing authority has nowhere made any addition qua the above sole reason of reopening.
That being the clinching case, I hereby quote Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 336 ITR 136 (Del.) and CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) to quash the impugned reopening for the above precise reason in very terms.